TWA FLIGHT 800

3rd party | 11/27/01 | Fred Roberts

[sandydipper]

Today I had conversation with a commercial pilot who said that in July of 1996 just after the SHOOT DOWN of TWA800 a co-worker also a commercial pilot told him that he was sent to Paris to pick up the TWA president and fly him back to DC. The second pilot was a military pilot at the time and said that as soon as they returned to DC the TWA guy was helicoptered to the White House.

[barf]

My Exhibit 19A does not chart the victims. Possibly later exhibit revisions do. Very few had burns consisting of only singed hair or flash burns. Many seats were burned indicating that my theory, that the CWT event followed the ejection of the victims, was correct. The medical forensics consisted of what the parameters were without showing specifics in the case of my copy of the exhibit. The net result is that I can't help you. I only know that the NTSB expressed surprise at the number who were decapitated.

[barf]

While trying to find a more up to date version of exhibit 19, I ran into the CVR transcript. At 20:25:41 TWA800 was instructed to climb to FL190, or the altitude that TWA900 was shown to be flying. At 20:26:21, that instruction was amended to maintain 13,000 (this is when I believe that the P3 showed up asking to be routed to W-105). At 20:30:15, TWA800 was instructed to climb to 15,000 (this is after the P3 crossed the projected path of TWA800). Less than one minute later, the missile struck the B747. If the P3 had not shown up, TWA800 should have safely crossed the Atlantic and we wouldn't be involved in its demise.

[acehai]

I just looked at my copy of Exhibit 19A and was surprised to see that only 8 passengers were confirmed burn victims, and all eight were recovered floating in the water. They were believed to have received their burns from the burning fuel slick. Seven of the eight were assigned seats in Area C, (above the Center Fuel Tank).

[Rokke]

"They were believed to have received their burns from the burning fuel slick."

Or....from the NTSB's report " Fire propagated in the [cabin zone located above the CWT] after most occupants [of this section] had been ejected. The small number of passengers with burn injuries exhibited only superficial burns consistent with exposure to a flash flamefront."
That would be a fireball. Not a burning oil slick.

[barf]

Right. My 19A was incomplete relative to showing the seating plan and the applicable physical trauma associated with them. I faintly recall seeing a seating plan that someone had in one of our forums. The latest copy of 19A must have much more than what I have. My copy of the CD was one of the first ir not the very first released. Maybe TJ had a copy since he had a lot of seat photos.

[barf]

The cartoon showed flames passing through the passenger cabin and these would have done much more than only singe hair or give flash burns. The cartoon was obviously a fraud. Nothing which the NTSB showed would cause massive decapitation. So, if one part of the explanation was deficient, all parts must have been in order to support the Mickey Mouse CWT cause. I strongly doubt that the majority of the NTSB members themselves believe their own report. If they did they would not have been afraid to call witnesses or review the FDR and radar exhibits. Kangaroo courts must have the NTSB hearing on TWA800 as their best example.

[Rokke]

"The cartoon showed flames passing through the passenger cabin and these would have done much more than only singe hair or give flash burns."

Based on all your experience analyzing the effects of flash fires and fireballs???

[Rokke]

"So, if one part of the explanation was deficient, all parts must have been in order to support the Mickey Mouse CWT cause."

Based on that logic, you can kiss your whole theory goodbye. I'm still looking for 30 knot subs, target towing P-3's and "KKV" Standard missiles.

[acehai]

Based on that logic, you can kiss your whole theory goodbye. I'm still looking for 30 knot subs, target towing P-3's and "KKV" Standard missiles.

Let me see if I can't give you some assistance, Rokke. Let's take 'em one at a time. Why not start with a Standard KKV? Something simple, right?

A little info on the Standard SM-2 Block IVA from http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm

Block IVA adds a dual-mode radio frequency/infrared (RF/IR) sensor, an upgraded ordnance package, and autopilot/control enhancements to the SM-2 Block IV The SM-2 Block IVA missile uses the TBMD-modified Aegis Weapon System on board Aegis cruisers and destroyers to track and engage TBMs, enhancing U.S. littoral warfare capability by allowing Aegis ships to provide TBMD for ships at sea and ground force embarkation areas ashore, without the constraints imposed by sealift or airlift. The SM-2 Block IVA upgrade is being developed to provide capability against theater ballistic missiles, although it is planned to retain capability against anti-air warfare threats. A System Design Review for SM-2 Block IVA was conducted in December 1993 and a Risk Reduction Flight Demonstration (RRFD) program was initiated in FY 1994. An Environmental Test Round (ETR-2A) was successfully launched in the summer 1996. On January 24, 1997, the Navy successfully demonstrated a Theater Ballistic Missile Defense capability when a ballistic missile target was shot from the sky for the first time using a new version of the Standard missile family. This Developmental Test Round (DTR-1) demonstrated the imaging infrared seeker and the capability to intercept a TBM.

Now I bet you're gonna say "where does it say KKV", ain't ya? Well, here's the rest of the story.

From Paris Match Magazine at http://www.parismatch.com/archives/news/twasuite/indexang.html

One of the nation's leading aviation and missile technology magazines, "Aviation Week and Space Technology, reported in its February 24, 1997 edition that the US Navy is "fielding a modified version of the Standard Missile so that Aegis ships can protect ports, coastal airfields and landing areas". The magazine states that the Navy will start "fielding" these Aegis missiles - which incidentally are of the same type and using the same type of ship which were located under TWA Flight 800 on the night of its shootdown - starting in the year 2002. But the Salinger-Sommer team has discovered that the Navy has already launched testing "full speed ahead". Aviation Week reported that "the success of a prototype Standard Missile 2 Block 4A in destroying a Lance missile target at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico on January, 1997 was so great that the Defense Acquisition Board will review the missile this month. The board will then take a decision on whether to begin the missile's further engineering and manufacturing".

Critically, the closure speed of the US Navy kill missile's test at White Sands showed that the Block 4A missile has speeds in excess of mach 8, or eight times the speed of sound.

The Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV), known as a Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP), was being integrated into the Standard Missile as early as 1992, despite Pentagon statements and protestations that the KKV was never tested in War Zones near the TWA disaster.

According to a statement to the Ballistic Missile Defense organization (BMDO) in that year, 1992, "the BMDO-Navy-LEAP Technology Demonstration Program, which began in 1992, completed the necessary missile systems engineering to integrate the LEAP project into the Navy's STANDARD Missile and a BMDO-developed Advanced Solid Axial Stage (ASAS) third stage motor. The investigation has uncovered that the KKV missile was tested in 1995, and that flight tests were performed in March, 1995 from the Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Richmond K. Turner. Phillips laboratory's Advanced Solid Axial Stage (ASAS) team, consisting of personnel from the Lab's Propulsion Directorate, and contractors from SPARTA and Thiokol Corporation - Elkton Division, successfully developed, tested, and delivered ASAS stages for use in the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and Navy Terrier Lightweight Exo-atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) flight demonstration test series. The ASAS went through a series of qualification and safety tests to demonstrate propulsion system performance, reliability, and safety characterisitics. Two flight stages were delivered for incorporation into Flight Test Vehicles 3 and 4. Both flight tests were then performed by the USS Richmond K. Turner. In both tests, the ASAS performed "as expected", providing what were called "optimal" performance from the thrust vector control and attitude control systems. ASAS was then baselined for follow-on demonstrations fro the BMDO and Navy Aegis-LEAP flight test demonstrations.

The SM-2 (IVA) was test fired in the Atlantic in early 1995, contrarily to what the Navy and Pentagon continually states, that it has only been test-fired this year.

Furthermore, documentation proves not only the the SM-2 (IV) is a test missile, but that KKV kill vehicle is fully integrated into the SM-2 (IV). The IV missile is, in fact, the IVA missile. These missiles have been continually used by the US Navy for at least two years, in direct contradiction to statements by the Pentagon and US Navy.

In its own admission, the US Navy, in a document, admits to be the "exclusive agent" for KKV kill missile !

During its eight-month investigation of the TWA Flight 800 disaster, the investigation team was in frequent contact with the previous and founding director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Brig. Gen. Burton K. Partin, who agreed with the team's analysis and conclusion that a US Navy missile had shot down TWA Flight 800. General Partin differed with the team in only one minor respect: he thinks the KKV missile had approached the TWA Flight 800 from the front to down it, not from the right side as the team had concluded. General Partin is widely respected in military circles as the man who built the Ballistic Missile Defense organization and designed many of its missiles. He stands as one of America's outstanding missile authorities.

The investigative team procured a US Navy "Memorandum for Correspondents", dated from February 8, 1995, that has been purged from many, but not all, military web pages. It invites the media to a test of the very missile that the US Navy says was not tested:

February 8, 1995

Memorandum for Correspondents

"On February 10, 1995, the Navy will test the integration of modified Standard Missile (SM-2 Block IV) and the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) kinetic-kill (KKV) in a ship-launched intercept of a mock Tactical Ballistic Missile.

Stationed off the coast of North Carolina, the navy cruiser USS Richmond K. Turner (CG 20) will fire the Standard Missile at a Scud-like target launched from NASA's Wallops Island Flight Facility in Virginia. The KKV is designed to track, manoeuvre, lock-on and guide itself to impact the target. Live video from the launch site and from the missile/KKV will be downlinked to the Pentagon Auditorium, Room 5A1070.

Rear admiral Rodney Rempt, Director of the Navy's Theater Air Defense Division, will be on hand to discuss specific aspects ot the test and asnwer questions. The launch is scheduled for 6:04 a.m., EST. The Pentagon Auditorium, Room 5A1070, will be open for correspondents beginning at 5:30 a.m., and those interested in attending should be seated by 5/45 a.m. We realize this is early but we will have coffee available.

Hughes Corporation is providing a LEAP hotline to update the status ot the launch every hour until the missile launch, n°XXXXXXXXXX, phone number deleted. The navy is the executive agent for the LEAP KKV program, which is funded through the Ballistic Missile Defense organization (BMDO).

Correspondants having additional questions on the launch should contact Lieutenant David Albritton at the Navy News Desk, n°XXXXXXXXXXX, phone number deleted."

This statement is now highly embarassing for the US Navy which has yet answer nothing to explain it.

By Mike Sommer

I can see where it would be embarassing, can't you, Rokke? And...In the light of the above, the timeline involved in the development of this Standard SM-3 KKV could conceivably be suspect, do ya suppose? (From Raytheon at http://www.raytheon.com/feature/sm3/ )

The Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) under development by Raytheon Company successfully completed an Aegis LEAP Intercept test on Jan. 25 at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii. The test, designated Flight Test Round-1A, was an evaluation of the SM-3's airframe stability and control through a nominal kinetic warhead (KW) separation. The missile flew a guided trajectory within the range safety boundaries. The test launch achieved third-stage separation, third-stage motor burn, and attitude control through nominal KW separation. A target was launched to verify the target launch procedures for future firings; to verify Aegis Weapon System fire control data and tracking performance; and to collect engineering data from the missile, including the KW infrared seeker imagery, to prepare for follow-on missions. The KW was pointed toward the target by the third stage and acquired the target during a portion of its terminal phase of flight. This infrared imagery will support future flight tests. Following the pre-planned procedure, the KW was ejected and continued to transmit telemetry until the mission ended. The launch, from the U.S. Navy Aegis Cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70), was the third in a planned series of nine test flights. SM-3 and the Aegis Weapon System comprise the Navy Theater Wide ballistic missile defense system. SM-3 is designed to intercept an incoming theater ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere. The kinetic warhead is based on technology developed during the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) program. SM-3 is under development by Raytheon at its Missile Systems business unit in Tucson, Ariz., with major subsystems developed by Thiokol Propulsion and the Boeing Company.

Gee whiz, Rokke, I do believe we've found your Standard KKVs. Hmmmm. Lemme see if, in the next episode, we can uncover an elusive 30 knot submarine...

Cheerio <}8^{)~

[Non-Sequitur]

No, you need to find the 30 knot surfaced sub capable of firing your Standard KKV missile for barf's theory to hold water. Good luck.

[acehai]

OK...Let's see if an ol' 30 kt submarine can be found lurking in the shallows of a littoral environment, shall we? We'll begin our search at Navy Fact File at
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssn.html

General Characteristics, Los Angeles class

Builders: Newport News Shipbuilding Co.; General Dynamics Electric Boat Division.

Power Plant: One nuclear reactor, one shaft

Length: 360 feet (109.73 meters)

Beam: 33 feet (10.06 meters)

Displacement: Approx. 6,900 tons (7010.73 metric tons) submerged

Speed: 20+ knots (23+ miles per hour, 36.8 +kph)

Whoops...I guess that 2O+ kt speed eliminates the USS Albuquerque (SSN 706) and the USS AUGUSTA (SSN 710), two of the Los Angeles class attack subs admitted by the Navy to have been in the area the night of July 17, 1996. Let's see about the The USS Trepang (SSN 674), a Sturgeon Class nuclear fast attack submarine, also admitted to have been present.

USS TREPANG (SSN-674) dp. 4229 tons (surf.), 4762 tons (subm.); l. 292'; b. 31.8';

speed. 15k (surf.), 25k (subm.); td. 1300'; a. 4-21" tt. amidships aft of bow;

...Hmmm...Lessee now. 25 kts. Still no cigar. But y'notice the disparity of 10 kts between her surfaced and submerged speed? Would it be too much to suppose this disparity is just about average for modern nuclear attack submarines of any class? Oh...There was another 'boat' admitted to be there also, but she was just a "boomer", theUSS Ohio, a SSBN. Oh well, we can't give up now...Let's go on to the:

USS Seawolf (SSN 21)

General Characteristics, Seawolf class

Builders: General Dynamics Electric Boat Division.

Power Plant: One nuclear reactor, one shaft

Length: 353 feet (107.6 meters)

Draft: 35 feet (10.67 meters)

Beam: 40 feet (12.2 meters)

Displacement: 8,060 tons (8,189.35 metric tons) surfaced; 9,150 tons (9,296.84 metric tons) submerged

Speed: 25+ knots (28+ miles per hour, 46.3+ kph)

Yeah, I know. But that's 25 plus knots, gang...How many more knots plus? Lookie, lookie here.

35 knots, 20 knots rigged for silent running.

(In case the specs don't come up, Click HERE

That 35 knots used to be listed on all the "Official Navy" websites until just a few months ago, then, all of a sudden, nary a trace. Nothing but 25+ every where you searched. Good thing I had the nav-tec site saved back, huh? Now back to that 10 knot disparity. If this holds true, and I wouldn't want to bet it doesn't, then 35 knots (submerged) works out to be 25 knots surfaced. Now if the boat was gunning it to get away, she'd in all probability be diving, and perhaps just the sail was dragging. About 5 kts worth...Not too hard a stretch to find our elusive 30 knots in that situation, I shouldn't wonder. Might be easy to mistake the wake from the sail as a "boat", also. Especially from several thousand feet in the air. Seems to me the kid in the rear of USAir 227 and the pilot of Cessna N776 reported such a wake. I've got the URL somewhere.

"But the Seawolf wasn't there", I can hear you screaming. Sorry, but she could very well have been. Jim Sanders sources say "a Seawolf class" submarine was engaged in military operations that night. And from http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/seawolf/index.html#specs we read:

The Navy began building Seawolf class attack submarines in 1989. They are the fastest, quietest, and most heavily armed attack submarine in the world. The first of the class, USS Seawolf (SSN-21) completed its initial sea trials in July 1996 and was commissioned in September 1996. (Actually, July 5th was the exact date of sea trial completion).

It's not that far from the Electric Boat yards to the Long Island Sound and W-105

See...That wasn't so hard, was it?

Cheers };^P

[Non-Sequitur]

Now remember, that is surfaced speed not submerged speed because you two are claiming that the 30 knot track was a sub. The Permit class was widely reputed to be the fastest attack subs ever built by the U.S. with submerged speeds well in excess of 35 knots. The Los Angeles are supposed to do over 30 knots submerged as well. But surfaced? That is another matter. You will note that your cut and paste on the Permit mentions a much lower surfaced speed than submerged. That is because the subs are designed for underwater performance not surfaced performance. You show me something that gives a surfaced speed of 30 knots for any U.S. or British boat and we'll talk.

[barf]

You didn't watch the cartoon? Where did the pressure come from that 'supposedly' blew off the nose? If you were inside a cylinder of your car's engine would you only suffer singed hair? The nose came off due to inertia from the violent CCW yaw. It peeled to the right and above. The break line showed tension failure in the bottom and left hand side and compression failure in the top and right hand side. There is a bent piece of skin sticking out of the reconstruction which mirrors this fold. The nose wreckage was found off to the right hand side of the line toward the main wreckage point in the seabed. The charring on the outer fuselage was absent forward of the breakline but heavy aft of the break line. The nose was already gone when the CWT event (flame up or explosion) occurred. How did seats become charred while no victims were charred? The victims, also, were gone when the CWT event occurred. The yaw tore off both the nose and empennage. Many of the 'Bobs' came from the center sectiion relative to seating assignments. The 'seat belt light' had not yet been turned off. The cabin crew was free to move about. You write as though you may have taken part in the cover-up. Did you.

[acehai]

You will note that your cut and paste on the Permit mentions a much lower surfaced speed than submerged.

You best check your eyeballs, bub...The Seawolf specs do not give a surfaced speed. And, since you mentioned it, yes-- the Seawolf's top speed submerged, though classified, is well in excess of 35 knots. Question is: how much is well in excess? 4?... 5?... 7?... Heck!...10 knots? And how much hydrodynamic drag is present on a surfaced Seawolf class submarine? Hows-about a semi-submerged vessel with just the sail creating the drag?

Unless you can provide something other than your questionable personal expertise refuting my comparisons vis a vis USS Trepang, a Sturgeon class submarine, and Seawolf (SSN-21) first of the Seawolf class submarine, neither of which is of the Thresher/Permit class, long since discarded (which preceeded the Sturgeon class [see footnote]). I leave it to the unbiased readers without an agenda to review my previous post (as I suggest you do) and decide as to whether I have made my point or not.

By the way, cut and paste supported by URLs are an accepted method of presentation on FreeRepublic. Deal with it.

Have a nice day...

;^P

Footnote: From http://www.warships1.com/ships-US/USssn593_Thresher.htm

Re: Thresher/Permit Class...

Originally named Thresher class, this was changed after the first of the class Thresher was lost while doing test deep dives in Apr./63. These boats had an improved tear drop shape and established the basic design for all later submarines.

...They have all been discarded.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, I worked with Permits but not with Seawolfs so I'm familiar with their performance. But I'll repeat. Show me a boat from any country that can do 30+ knots surfaced and I'll accept the possibility that a submarine could be the track in question. Then all you have to do is show that VP-26 was towing a target that night and that a U.S. or allied submarine could have fired the missile and I'll slink away never to darken your door again. I won't hold my breath, though.

While we are on the subject, why do you think that none of the crew members of the P-3 mentioned that they were towing a target? You suppose it could be that they weren't towing one?

[Rokke]

I'm going to assume you are kidding. Your KKV info is such a hodgepodge of tangled information you could probably confuse a China Lake weapons specialist. Let me straighten some things out for you.

1. A Kenetic Kill Vehicle is designed to destroy theater ballistic missile warheads outside the Earth's atmosphere. It impacts its targets at hypersonic speeds (lets say about 6 miles per second). To test it, you use a target that simulates a ballistic missile warhead. A drone pulled by a P-3 doesn't even come close.

2. The Standard Block IVA has been actually fired twice with the first test in 1997. Both tests were in New Mexico. This ain't your TWA800 beast.

3. Pierre Salinger and Mike Sommer are not the sources you want to rest your case on. Salinger has been hiding under his rock ever since revealing to the world his "secret" TWA800 documents that had been floating around the internet for months. Let me quote Salinger during that debacle "Salinger, when asked what type of ship was involved, told New York radio station WCBS it was a ``ship known as the P-3, but I don't know what that means.'' Good, knowledgeable source Acehai. Sommer was his cohort in buffoonary, but apparently wasn't smart enough to know when he was behind. His piece that you quote is an embarrassment to conspiracy nuts everywhere. He's trying to claim a missile first tested in 1997 is the TWA800 culprit. He supports that statement with nothing. The Navy did perform KKV related tests from the Turner in 1995, but they used a modified Standard Block IV. The Block IVA is a TBMD missile. The Block IV is not. That is a HUGE difference. Apparently one that is lost on someone as uncredible as Sommers. Furthermore, apparently the secret Navy KKV tests he talks about were SO SECRET the Navy announced them two days in advance and informed interested parties where they could watch live video of the tests (with coffee available). SCANDALOUS!!! Finally, Sommers can't even get his own sources right. There is no B Gen Burton K. Partin. There is a B Gen Benton K. Partin. If there's a tinfoil hat hall of fame, this guy must be the founding member. This kook first claimed there was undeniable proof TWA800 was taken out with a countinuous rod warhead. Now he believes it's a KKV missile. He also believes the Feds blew up the OKC building and the were responsible for the first WTC bombing. I say again…good source Acehai.

4. I'm not even going to start on your SM-3 comments. Why not just blame everything on the Emperial Deathstar?

[barf]

The mission report appeared to have been trimmed at the bottom as well as being informal since written by hand. Can you present the formal and signed submittal report? Also, if differing with what the target really was, can you give the radar fix data where the reported speed came from? Could the target have been a ship with VLS rather than a sub? Was the 30-knot stated speed only a ballpark figure? Multiple radar fixes could be used to calculate the true speed. If disagreeing with sled and sub discovery, can you explain what caused the shootdown of TWA800? And, if not a shootdown, what did cause the crash? An exploding CWT is laughable as the initiating event. The physical debris does not support that. The radar record does not support that. The FDR record does not support that. What then?

[Non-Sequitur]

I have no idea what caused the crash. I only know that your theory makes no sense because there is no evidence that supports it.

[barf]

If you have NO idea, why do you dispute any idea? Do you have an agenda?